[Partisan Hack]

I have a very liberal CATHOLIC friend who proclaims that it's okay to vote for politicians who have beliefs contrary to the teachings of the church.

He claims that the seperation of church and state affords this.

How would you counter this argument?

[onyx]

He's a democrat.
There's no making sense to them.

[Search4Truth]

"I have a very liberal CATHOLIC friend who proclaims that it's okay to vote for politicians who have beliefs contrary to the teachings of the church.

He claims that the seperation of church and state affords this.

How would you counter this argument?"

Ask them for the chapter and verse.

The laws on men will not protect them from God's judgement.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Your liberal Catholic friend is ignorant of the teachings of not only the Church but of the "separation of church and state". I'll bet he's a CINO VOTF member who has never cracked open a copy of the Catechism.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I have a very liberal CATHOLIC friend who proclaims that it's okay to vote for politicians who have beliefs contrary to the teachings of the church.

I also have a Catholic friend like that. He leads a very conservative lifestyle, but he is a lawyer and votes DEMOCRAT. We used to argue about it, but I gave up on him.

I'm going to buy a George W. shirt and hat and wear it around him.

[vrwcagent0498]

I'd tell him that Hitler did wonders for the economy of Germany and bettered the lives of most Germans.

Would he use an argument like that to have voted for him back then?

[Smokin' Joe]

I would point out that any support of someone who advocates the policies which go against Church doctrine, and indeed the Bible, supports those policies and makes him/her an accomplice to their implementation. They share in the sin, share in the crime.

Jesus said that He would rather we were hot or cold than lukewarm, and that claiming to separate church and state is a disingenous cop-out. For the individual, there is no separation, just the relationship between themselves and God.

[Lion Den Dan]

I have a very liberal CATHOLIC friend who proclaims that it's okay to vote for politicians who have beliefs contrary to the teachings of the church. He claims that the seperation of church and state affords this. How would you counter this argument?

Separation of church and state does not separate morality and the state or separate the state from what is just plain right.

[moonman]

"He claims that the seperation of church and state affords this." How would you counter this argument?

First, educate him about the fact there is no 'separation of church and state' clause in the Constitution. If he is receptive to that, then ask him, "What SEPARATES your soul from your conscience?

[ADSUM]

Send him a copy of this voter's guide and advise him to read it. He could also read the Catholic doctrine references cited.

The guide specifically states "In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the ‘non-negotiable’ issues.

In such situations, a citizen will be called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.

In this guide we will look first at the principles that should be applied in clear-cut races, where there is an unambiguously good moral choice. These same principles help lay the groundwork for what to do in situations that are more difficult.

Knowing the principles that are applied in ideal situations is useful when facing problematic ones, so as you review the principles you should keep in mind that they often must be applied in situations where the choice is more difficult. At the end of the guide we will offer practical advice about how to decide to cast your vote in those cases.


It also might be helpful for him to read the US Constitution. The US Constitution does allow us to have religious beliefs and practice our religion.

Ask him why he wants to be led by someone who promotes intrinsically evil policies?